View Full Version : Wind Turbine Snarl Up In Wick
Green_not_greed
05-Dec-07, 21:10
I was wondering if any could cast further light on the story in today's Courier that a wind turbine section on its way from the harbour had got stuck while trying to get round the Rosebank Playing Fields yesterday morning, and had to be reversed all the way back to the harbour.
Did anyone actually see it?
Was there any damage?
The photograph appears to show that the turbine badly scored on one side.
Are these turbines for the 3 turbine development at Bilbster?
GNG
Hehehhehehe..... it seems our 'diversion' had the right effect.......
The more that get duffed up the better...... :D
The bigger these things get, the harder they will find it to arrive at their destinations undamaged - unless of course there is going to be massive road-widening all over the county. Pity the poor lorry driver sorting that one out.
If it is the Bilbster or Flex Hill turbines the sooner they get them up the better, complete with dents and scratches. Then everybody will see exactly how three of these blooming things look in the middle of a populated area not stuck out on the Causeymire. It might then dawn on everyone what the prospect of 30 on Spittal Hill or 21 on Baillie Hill will do for everyone's sanity!!
The windmill wasn't damaged. The mark you can see in the photo is the control cable connecting the lights etc. from tractor unit to the trailer.
ywindythesecond
05-Dec-07, 23:04
If it is the Bilbster or Flex Hill turbines the sooner they get them up the better, complete with dents and scratches. Then everybody will see exactly how three of these blooming things look in the middle of a populated area not stuck out on the Causeymire. It might then dawn on everyone what the prospect of 30 on Spittal Hill or 21 on Baillie Hill will do for everyone's sanity!!
Just to remind you what Spittal Hill windmills will look like just up from Mybster crossroads.................
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6641/112310windmillsuv1.jpg
Plenty of room for a few more I think....
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2281/windfarm4kf8.jpg
northener
06-Dec-07, 10:29
Bring 'em on , I say!
Green_not_greed
06-Dec-07, 13:23
Rourkee
Do you know if there was any other damage?
GNG
It seems anti windmill signatures are getting bigger by the day!
I cant seem to get sigs those big to work for me maybe it the pro windfarm logo thats stopping me :)
Only joking, never saw it but its only a matter of time before something gets stuck or causes an accident as they are bonny and bulky and our wee streets cannae cope with the size of them.
Rourkee
Do you know if there was any other damage?
GNG
No damage at all as far as I know, in fact assembly has started and one tower is up.
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-07, 23:03
Only joking, never saw it but its only a matter of time before something gets stuck or causes an accident as they are bonny and bulky and our wee streets cannae cope with the size of them.
Has anyone noticed that after the load stuck in Wick there was, amazingly, a better lorry on hand to transport it, and the police, amazingly, have a better route for the next time?
So why didn't the better lorry take the better route to start with? It would have been cheaper, easier, and more efficient.
My guess is that it was a dummy run for bigger turbines in the future.
Transporting abnormal loads is very expensive, and the operators do not leave things to chance. So to try something which might fail but still have a reliable solution in reserve means that the transporters are being funded for it.
I don't know the answer to this, but is it possible that the people behind Bilbster have an interest in the bigger windfarms proposed for Caithness?
Gosh there is no limits to the paranoia! :lol:
Might explain the straightness of the A836 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=36937)........
Highland Laddie
07-Dec-07, 00:29
An area of land could be cleared at the airport beside the refueling area, i believe bigger sections of wind turbine could be shipped into wick and a Mil Mi-26 helicopter (20 ton lift capacity) could be based there to airlift the sections directly from the harbour to the installation site.
Might explain the straightness of the A836 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=36937)........
Yes, perhaps the recent plea by Thurso community council to upgrade the A9 might facillitate the windturbines to negotiate the Braes and hence they can be brought in by road instead of having to be shipped in and pay expensive port duty at Wick?:roll:
The bigger these things get, the harder they will find it to arrive at their destinations undamaged - unless of course there is going to be massive road-widening all over the county.
Mmm - how about bringing them up from Inverness? I'd join the pro-windies if we got a dual carriageway out of it........ And if that happened the turbines could actually be said to be benefitting development/economy of the county. Oops, nearly forgot, I have to take 3-3/4 hours to go by train for my footprint's sake.
Green_not_greed
07-Dec-07, 09:32
Tilter
Don't worry about your footprint - the turbine developers certainly don't!http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
An interesting point made by ywindy2 which may not be as paranoid as rheghead suggests. I can't comment on Bilbster's interests in other larger Caithness windfarms. However, regarding Flex Hill (Bilbster site) itself, why go to the trouble of putting in all that infrastructure for only three turbines. Its there now, so it's already in place for more. Its exactly what happened at Forss. I don't think Flex Hill or Achairn will stop at three turbines.
GNG
However, regarding Flex Hill (Bilbster site) itself, why go to the trouble of putting in all that infrastructure for only three turbines. Its there now, so it's already in place for more. Its exactly what happened at Forss. I don't think Flex Hill or Achairn will stop at three turbines.
GNG
Surely you would support such a move?
The impact of an expansion of an existing development must be the best option than a whole new one both for reasons of energy balance and visual impact?:roll:
Green_not_greed
07-Dec-07, 13:42
Surely you would support such a move?
The impact of an expansion of an existing development must be the best option than a whole new one both for reasons of energy balance and visual impact?:roll:
I agree with your last point but certainly don't agree with your first one.
Todays politics very much rely on what is today called "spin". In past times this would have been known as lying. The BWEA and turbine developers are as guilty as the politicians in this.
What we need to see is a good dose of HONESTY!
So when a turbine developer comes along, optimises a site for design and then goes for planning permission for -say - 3 turbines, it should stay at 3 turbines. There should be a planning condition to say that the approval is given on that basis and no more are to be built. If they want 10 turbines then they should honestly apply for them up front. If they can't develop the site all at once then they should apply outright for the entire development and say that it will be done in phases.
The public and statutory consultees have a right to know what is proposed for a site before they decide to support or object. Otherwise the whole place will be covered in 2-3 turbine "foot-in-the-door" developments each of which will be trying to shoehorn in as many additional turbines as they can on the basis that "we already have some, a few more can't hurt".
This is precisely the approach being taken right now by North British Windpower near Bettyhill. They dropped a proposal for 50 turbines and have very recently revived the application and applied for 2. If they get 2 it certainly won't stop there.
GNG
Any examples where the BWEA and windfarm developers have lied?:confused
Green_not_greed
07-Dec-07, 15:04
Any examples where the BWEA and windfarm developers have lied?:confused
How long have you got?
Let's start with the Advertising Standards Authority which upheld a complaint in February 2006 about a leaflet circulated by Ecotricity, stating it breached clauses in its code of conduct concerning "substantiation" and "truthfulness". This was in regard to the number of homes claimed to be powered by some of Ecotricity's turbines. Ecotricity produced these claims using BWEA's guidelines. The same claims using the same guidelines are still being made by windfarm developers up and down the country.
How long have you got?
Let's start with the Advertising Standards Authority which upheld a complaint in February 2006 about a leaflet circulated by Ecotricity, stating it breached clauses in its code of conduct concerning "substantiation" and "truthfulness". This was in regard to the number of homes claimed to be powered by some of Ecotricity's turbines. Ecotricity produced these claims using BWEA's guidelines. The same claims using the same guidelines are still being made by windfarm developers up and down the country.
Any links?:confused
I think this claim may not be just restricted to the wind energy sector, it is a fairly old-ground arguement and it will apply to any energy generator. Any energy generating plant whether it be wind, nuke , gas , coal, wave or tidal will not generate at full plated capacity at 100% of the time. They will always have outages. So I don't see how the BWEA have lied if the industry standard is to quote maximum power output to describe how much power a generator can produce unless the Energy sector is lying as a whole.
ywindythesecond
07-Dec-07, 17:45
If it is the Bilbster or Flex Hill turbines the sooner they get them up the better, complete with dents and scratches. Then everybody will see exactly how three of these blooming things look in the middle of a populated area not stuck out on the Causeymire. It might then dawn on everyone what the prospect of 30 on Spittal Hill or 21 on Baillie Hill will do for everyone's sanity!!
Or 12 at Stroupster or 48 at Scoolary or 2 at Lieurary or 25 at Camster or 13 at Yarrows or 22 at Dunbeath or 1 at Bower or 13 at Durran Mains or some more at Nottingham Mains or five at Shebster and thats just Caithness.
Or 2 at Bettyhill or about 12 at Melvich or 35 at Strathy North or 77 at Strathy South or 3 at the Moine and that is just North Sutherland.
Sorry if I missed any. Hands up everyone who knows where Scoolary is.
Green_not_greed
07-Dec-07, 18:28
Any links?:confused
I think this claim may not be just restricted to the wind energy sector, it is a fairly old-ground arguement and it will apply to any energy generator. Any energy generating plant whether it be wind, nuke , gas , coal, wave or tidal will not generate at full plated capacity at 100% of the time. They will always have outages. So I don't see how the BWEA have lied if the industry standard is to quote maximum power output to describe how much power a generator can produce unless the Energy sector is lying as a whole.
Try Ecotricity's own website link: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/Telegraph/doti.php
and note 1 at the bottom. It confirms that they misled the public, though they seem reluctant to believe it themselves
An average, wind turbines produce typically 25-30% of their nominal output, depending on the wind of course. So why isn't this taken into account in the developers claims before they are built? After all, the facts are well known. Once again, its simple - all they have to do is TELL THE TRUTH!
Lets move onto the next set of lies, shall we?
How about turbine operators claiming that, following accidents, the accident was a one-off and they have no knowledge of similar accidents occurring anywhere else? However, a quick trawl through the internet will show that turbine accidents are surprisingly common. So why don't the operators claim to know about them? After all, even BWEA have an annual safety seminar.......
I can give numerous examples of this type of lie.
NickInTheNorth
07-Dec-07, 18:44
Just to remind you what Spittal Hill windmills will look like just up from Mybster crossroads.................
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6641/112310windmillsuv1.jpg
Looks pretty good to me. I'm afraid that the one argument that will never persuade me to object to any windfarm is the visual intrusion. I love the look of them!
Could someone explain why if a new reactor was not to be sited here due to transmission losses why it is that windmills siteing is still feasible. Could it be that subsidies are paid on generation rather than what is usefully available when power finally reaches where it is consumed.
Hands up everyone who knows where Scoolary is.
My hand is up....[lol]
Try Ecotricity's own website link: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/Telegraph/doti.php
and note 1 at the bottom. It confirms that they misled the public, though they seem reluctant to believe it themselves
An average, wind turbines produce typically 25-30% of their nominal output, depending on the wind of course. So why isn't this taken into account in the developers claims before they are built? After all, the facts are well known. Once again, its simple - all they have to do is TELL THE TRUTH!
I'm afraid you are missing the point.
It isn't a big secret that windfarms typically produce on average 25-30% (Causeymire is producing 40% btw), you just have to look up this BWEA webpage.
http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html
So how can BWEA be misleading the public when all the information is in the public domain on BWEA websites?:roll:
Lets move onto the next set of lies, shall we?
How about turbine operators claiming that, following accidents, the accident was a one-off and they have no knowledge of similar accidents occurring anywhere else? However, a quick trawl through the internet will show that turbine accidents are surprisingly common. So why don't the operators claim to know about them? After all, even BWEA have an annual safety seminar.......
I can give numerous examples of this type of lie.
Oh, please do!:roll:
Looks pretty good to me. I'm afraid that the one argument that will never persuade me to object to any windfarm is the visual intrusion. I love the look of them!
I too find them quite graceful and mesmerizing in a way but, and its a big but, only from a long way away. When they are being planned very close to people's homes its a different matter. Some of these developments are planned to be within a few hundred metres of residencies. Its fine for people who can view them from afar but what about when your whole view out of your window is now full of wind turbines and right up close? I think it must be against someone's human rights to have that foisted on them. If there must be windfarms then I'm sure there are many places where they could be much more sensitively sited. It just seems to me that up here its a case of 'I've got a bit of land, how can I make the most money out of it - oh, I know lets build a windfarm and to hell with the neighbours'.
Could someone explain why if a new reactor was not to be sited here due to transmission losses why it is that windmills siteing is still feasible.
Davem,
I have long wondered this. In fact, one of our estimable politicians at the pre-election hustings last year said a new reactor could not be sited here due to those very same transmission losses. I wanted to ask why windmills could - but (dealing with said politicians) couldn't get a word in edgewise. I do think it's a question worthy of our new Highland Council forums but my next one (Landward) is on Tuesday 11 Dec at Ross Institute, Halkirk, and hence too late now to submit questions. But someone could for next council forum (Thurso?). Could you do this? And could the reply please be posted on the Org.
Sorry if I missed any. Hands up everyone who knows where Scoolary is.
Hey Windy,
Um - so where exactly is Scoolary? (Proud to be Caithness-Resident-of-20-Years-Speaking-Who's-Never-Heard-of-Scoolary). Is it past Greenland but further East somewhere?
Could someone explain why if a new reactor was not to be sited here due to transmission losses why it is that windmills siteing is still feasible. Could it be that subsidies are paid on generation rather than what is usefully available when power finally reaches where it is consumed.
I think it is because that nuclear energy is not renewable but wind is. Transmission losses are most in long distances so nuke plants being ~1300MW will mean that a proportion of fuel will be wasted in delivering the energy to the main centres of population. The arguement doesn't apply to wind because there is no fuel to waste, it is expendable provided we have enough generators.
Hey Windy,
Um - so where exactly is Scoolary? (Proud to be Caithness-Resident-of-20-Years-Speaking-Who's-Never-Heard-of-Scoolary). Is it past Greenland but further East somewhere?
Slickly I think.
Scoolary is in Charlie's back garden........ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article573885.ece)
Slickly I think.
Rheggie I give up (not having OS map to hand). Where's Slickly? Don't answer - I can Google. I'd just like a pertinent answer every so often.
Scoolary is in Charlie's back garden........ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article573885.ece)
Hmm, 5km away? But thanks for letting us know the depth at which some people will resort to to pursue their agenda.;)
Rheggie I give up (not having OS map to hand). Where's Slickly? Don't answer - I can Google. I'd just like a pertinent answer every so often.
Half way up the Upper Gills to Lyth road. In the middle of nowhere unless you live there of course. But I am not sure whether the Prince can see the windfarm clearly from Mey, he may need further info if his only source of info is representations from CWIF. I will have to do some closer calculations, thanks, you have given me another thing to check up. ;)
In the middle of nowhere unless you live there of course. (probably pertinent to those who live there.)
he may need further info if his only source of info is representations from CWIF. Please explain to the Unenlightened.
I will have to do some closer calculations, thanks, you have given me another thing to check up. ;)I did? Explain. I do applaud your propensity for checking everything. You are my reality check Rheghead. I just wish you'd stop playing Devil's Advocate once in a great while as it's very tiring.
Or 12 at Stroupster or 48 at Scoolary or 2 at Lieurary or 25 at Camster or 13 at Yarrows or 22 at Dunbeath or 1 at Bower or 13 at Durran Mains or some more at Nottingham Mains or five at Shebster and thats just Caithness.
Or 2 at Bettyhill or about 12 at Melvich or 35 at Strathy North or 77 at Strathy South or 3 at the Moine and that is just North Sutherland.
Sorry if I missed any. Hands up everyone who knows where Scoolary is.
Yes, I used to see it when we were cutting peats in the days long ago....
I think it is because that nuclear energy is not renewable but wind is.
Maybe not per se - but there is no real shortage of uranium for a very long time (maybe till fusion becomes a reality?)- and it's my understanding that nuclear is far more efficient/dependable, so is as good as/better than renewable. I'm getting in over my head here, but am sure you'll let me know if I (a layman) am getting it wrong.
Maybe not per se - but there is no real shortage of uranium for a very long time (maybe till fusion becomes a reality?).
Please tell me what you mean by a very long time. Descriptions of time are so relative and qualitative.
In terms of competing against rising economic powers like China and Russia, we need to find an energy security strategy that extends beyond the end of the century when China is expected to converge in line with the carbon emissions per capita of the west.
The expected economical reserves of extractable reserves of uranium are to last ~50 years or may be a little more....at present rates of use anyway. If we refuse to utilise the ace-in-the-pack of renewable energy sources then nuke will have to play a greater role. So economic and proven uranium reserves may fizzle out before then. In this scenario, energy prices will go through the roof imo.
Scientists are natural sceptics, there is no guarantee that the fusion project will work either technically or economically, we can't take that risk on account that we don't like windfarms, politicians are sceptics as to whether fast breeding technology will be acceptable either in national security terms or environmental terms. In any case, nuke will neither provide energy security or a long-term solution to our energy needs with respect to climate change, given the fact that economic uranium reserves will fizzle out before the century is out.
Either way, we need to fully utilise the wind at the sites that count the most.
I just wish you'd stop playing Devil's Advocate once in a great while as it's very tiring.
If I am then I usually say so and I am quite unashamed about it when that happens. But it is very rare that I do. I do intentionally post dispassionately about stuff, and I know only too well that some people find that annoying (which may be why I do it) but it is rarely done as a devil's advocate thing.
NickInTheNorth
09-Dec-07, 11:54
I too find them quite graceful and mesmerizing in a way but, and its a big but, only from a long way away. When they are being planned very close to people's homes its a different matter. Some of these developments are planned to be within a few hundred metres of residencies.
I moved into a house 200 metres from 2 turbines which were set ontop of a hill 50 metres high. As you can imagine they totally dominated the view. They were noisy too! I lived there very happily for three years. Would I do it again?
You bet I would.
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-07, 13:32
I moved into a house 200 metres from 2 turbines which were set ontop of a hill 50 metres high. As you can imagine they totally dominated the view. They were noisy too! I lived there very happily for three years. Would I do it again?
You bet I would.
What size were they Nick?
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-07, 13:35
Davem,
I have long wondered this. In fact, one of our estimable politicians at the pre-election hustings last year said a new reactor could not be sited here due to those very same transmission losses. I wanted to ask why windmills could - but (dealing with said politicians) couldn't get a word in edgewise. I do think it's a question worthy of our new Highland Council forums but my next one (Landward) is on Tuesday 11 Dec at Ross Institute, Halkirk, and hence too late now to submit questions. But someone could for next council forum (Thurso?). Could you do this? And could the reply please be posted on the Org.
Tilter, it is not too late to submit a question. The advert was posted too late for people to respond in the advertised time scale, and they will accept "late" questions, same as last Landward forum.
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-07, 13:43
Half way up the Upper Gills to Lyth road. In the middle of nowhere unless you live there of course. But I am not sure whether the Prince can see the windfarm clearly from Mey, he may need further info if his only source of info is representations from CWIF. I will have to do some closer calculations, thanks, you have given me another thing to check up. ;)
Won't see them from the front door because of the rising ground immediately in front, but will have a great view from the upstairs bedrooms. Let me know the result of your check Reggy
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-07, 13:49
Hey Windy,
Um - so where exactly is Scoolary? (Proud to be Caithness-Resident-of-20-Years-Speaking-Who's-Never-Heard-of-Scoolary). Is it past Greenland but further East somewhere?
Scoolary Windfarm would be 27 km north of Burn of Whilk Windfarm.
Won't see them from the front door because of the rising ground immediately in front, but will have a great view from the upstairs bedrooms. Let me know the result of your check Reggy
Since a view is not a right in itself, the only other grounds for complaint the Prince would have is if it affects his quality of life. Somehow I don't think Highland would seriously buy any complaint that Scoolary which is 5km away, is seriously affecting the Prince of Wales's quality of life.:lol:
But you never know, the Prince may still have some sway up here.
Saw on the politics show today on BBC1 the governments going to make some big announcement tomorrow about opening the whole of the coast round Britain to off-shore wind farm developers. Sounds to me like on-shore is out and off-shore is in. Lets hope thats sent a shiver down a few people's spines!
Here inded is the announcement -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135930.stm
I have always said that I would prefer to have windfarms off shore - hopefully it will stop the drive by greedy landowners to line their pockets.
Here indeed is the announcement -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135930.stm
I have always said that I would prefer to have wind farms off shore - hopefully it will stop the drive by greedy landowners to line their pockets.
This must be good news overall but the Scottish Executive has blocked inshore sites being used for wind farms when offshore development sites (>12miles) are largely unsuitable around Scotland. This has given credence to the view that it may accelerate wind farm proliferation on the Scottish mainland.
Your latter point just sums up yours and many other's bias towards wind energy which would help absolutely nothing towards solving the UK's energy problems. Firstly, Caithness landowners are just farmers, (they are not on the same scale of financial power and influence compared to nPowerenewables), yet their proposals are constantly being attacked by the likes of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. Yet the Causeymire wind farm is supported by CWIF. Why is that? Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables? Surely no!:roll:
Secondly, any breakthrough into the offshore wind energy market by locals is expected to be extremely limited, if at all possible, given the financial backing for such a venture and will only be possible by the likes of German based RWE, npowerenewables, etc.
This is just another example of how locals are clipping the wings of local business entrepreneurs and thus opening the door to faceless multi-nationals.
Hey, with friends like this eh? [disgust]
ywindythesecond
10-Dec-07, 21:34
Here inded is the announcement -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135930.stm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135930.stm)
I have always said that I would prefer to have windfarms off shore - hopefully it will stop the drive by greedy landowners to line their pockets.
It is official, windpower needs back-up! This is by a Government Minister (see link above)
Asked what would happen if there was no wind for a few days, Mr Hutton said that was why there had to be a mix of energy sources - including nuclear power - to cover for calmer weather periods.
This is just another example of how locals are clipping the wings of local business entrepreneurs and thus opening the door to faceless multi-nationals.
Hey, with friends like this eh? [disgust]
Here speaketh the voice of the local windfarm industry!!
ywindythesecond
10-Dec-07, 21:54
This must be good news overall but the Scottish Executive has blocked inshore sites being used for wind farms when offshore development sites (>12miles) are largely unsuitable around Scotland. This has given credence to the view that it may accelerate wind farm proliferation on the Scottish mainland.
Your latter point just sums up yours and many other's bias towards wind energy which would help absolutely nothing towards solving the UK's energy problems. Firstly, Caithness landowners are just farmers, (they are not on the same scale of financial power and influence compared to nPowerenewables), yet their proposals are constantly being attacked by the likes of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. Yet the Causeymire wind farm is supported by CWIF. Why is that? Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables? Surely no!:roll:
Secondly, any breakthrough into the offshore wind energy market by locals is expected to be extremely limited, if at all possible, given the financial backing for such a venture and will only be possible by the likes of German based RWE, npowerenewables, etc.
This is just another example of how locals are clipping the wings of local business entrepreneurs and thus opening the door to faceless multi-nationals.
Hey, with friends like this eh? [disgust]
Pretty mixed bag there Reggy. I think you need to do a bit of checking. N-power renewables are a subsidiary of RWE, for example. CWIF has never expressed an opinion on Causeymire WF as far as I know. And just carry on to check your other assertions as well. This post is not up to your usually well researched standard. Even 5K orgers have to keep up to the mark.
Windfarm proposals in Caithness are a mixture of local ventures, ventures by national, by multi-national, and by overseas companies. If you were to look again at CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) you would find a very even handed approach to all of them.
You seem to champion ventures by private Caithness landowners. Please describe the benefits you anticipate flowing down from these developments to the communities they affect.
Pretty mixed bag there Reggy. I think you need to do a bit of checking. N-power renewables are a subsidiary of RWE, for example.
I knew that, I never said they weren't.
CWIF has never expressed an opinion on Causeymire WF as far as I know.
The higher echelons of CWIF have spoken quite plainly in favor of the Causeymire development. I assume it is because of the close family ties?
Please describe the benefits you anticipate flowing down from these developments to the communities they affect.
I haven't the foggiest, I am not connected with the wind industry. But each development will require some fulltime staff. And there is some community benefit, I would like to see more but that isn't any reason to object to them.
Here speaketh the voice of the local windfarm industry!!
What would you rather have? Multinationals profitting from local windfarms or locals?:confused
ywindythesecond
10-Dec-07, 23:55
[quote=Rheghead;309121]
I haven't the foggiest,quote]
Thanks reggy, the truth at last!
Thanks reggy, the truth at last!
I'm never afraid to admit that, not like some people who make it up as they go along.
ywindythesecond
11-Dec-07, 00:14
I'm never afraid to admit that, not like some people who make it up as they go along.
I'm out
ywy2
Green_not_greed
12-Dec-07, 21:31
Yet the Causeymire wind farm is supported by CWIF. Why is that? Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables? Surely no!
Hmmm. Potentially embarrassing for CWIF then? Not like you to let it go simply at that. Please elaborate more....some facts please.
Yes come on, do tell. I'm dying to know who in CWIF is married to npower.
Hmmm. Potentially embarrassing for CWIF then? Not like you to let it go simply at that. Please elaborate more....some facts please.
Why would it be potentially embarrassing for CWIF? Like ywindy said, CWIF treats all developments the same. And anyway, it would be totally inappropriate for me to publically harm someone's right to privacy.
Green_not_greed
13-Dec-07, 11:41
And anyway, it would be totally inappropriate for me to publically harm someone's right to privacy.
And its just as harmful to CWIF to make up complete hogwash and post it to noticeboards. What you have posted is complete nonsense. Please can you either provide further details or apologise?
Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables?
Huh? Have I got this right: unless said wife is a bigamist, it follows that one of CWIF's main guys is a big cheese in Npower.
The plot thickens, or someone's lost it.
What would you rather have? Multinationals profitting from local windfarms or locals?:confused
What makes you think that your so called local entrepreneurial landowners are not mixed up with multinationals? Do some checking, you might be surprised at what you find out. They might be calling themselves local developers but waiting in the wings are the big boys.
And its just as harmful to CWIF to make up complete hogwash and post it to noticeboards.
Like manipulating photos?
Green_not_greed
14-Dec-07, 15:26
Like manipulating photos?
As usual you are avoiding answering the question. Can you please provide details or apologise?
As usual you are avoiding answering the question. Can you please provide details or apologise?
An apology is not needed, who have I offended?
ywindythesecond
14-Dec-07, 23:20
Like manipulating photos?
I'm back in
ywy2
What are you referring to reggy?
I'm back in
ywy2
What are you referring to reggy?
Guilty concience?
ywindythesecond
15-Dec-07, 10:45
Guilty concience?
There is nothing on my conscience Reggy, but you still have unfinished business to attend to.
I seem to remember from previous posts and the local paper that it was admitted there was a minor error with a photomontage which has been corrected, although I don't think you've ever actually acknowledged this, Rheghead. Or did I miss that bit?
As for the allegation over who is married to whom, I really don't think you should throw out this kind of comment without being sure of your facts. If you don't want to state it publicly, why don't you PM ywindy and give him the name of the person involved (since obviously he will know them). He can then enlighten you privately and hopefully you will withdraw.
Green_not_greed
15-Dec-07, 16:24
An apology is not needed, who have I offended?
You have offended everyone in CWIF by clearly stating that one of them is influenced by NPower through marriage. So thats over 400 people.
As usual, you have failed to substantiate that claim and have failed to apologise. At least as Badger points out above when one minor error was discovered with a CWIF photomontage they immediately replaced it and clearly stated so. They have the grown up approach and it appears that you are still very much a little boy.
You have offended everyone in CWIF by clearly stating that one of them is influenced by NPower through marriage. So thats over 400 people.
As usual, you have failed to substantiate that claim and have failed to apologise. At least as Badger points out above when one minor error was discovered with a CWIF photomontage they immediately replaced it and clearly stated so. They have the grown up approach and it appears that you are still very much a little boy.
Unsubstantiated claims? I have neither the patience or the time to list the endless and erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by you or the other anti-windies on the technical attributes of wind energy technology.
I think you need to do some growing up yourself, did you stamp your foot as you typed that post?:confused
There is a distinct difference between disagreements over technical issues - the pros and the antis are never likely to agree - and a personal comment about an individual which you cannot (presumably) substantiate. What is wrong with adopting my suggestion that you check it out with ywindy?
There is a distinct difference between disagreements over technical issues - the pros and the antis are never likely to agree - and a personal comment about an individual which you cannot (presumably) substantiate.
Here speaketh the voice of the local windfarm industry!!
Badger, where was your sense of civility when olivia was making that false and unsubstantiated claim about me?:confused
ywindythesecond
15-Dec-07, 23:16
There is a distinct difference between disagreements over technical issues - the pros and the antis are never likely to agree - and a personal comment about an individual which you cannot (presumably) substantiate. What is wrong with adopting my suggestion that you check it out with ywindy?
Badger, what makes you think Reggy would listen to me?
He might not even be able to hear me over the myriad small voices rattling around inside his head and battling to be the first out his mouth.
There is possibly so much confusion in there that he can't remember the last question, and that may be why he never answers it.
ywy2
Badger, what makes you think Reggy would listen to me?
He might not even be able to hear me over the myriad small voices rattling around inside his head and battling to be the first out his mouth.
There is possibly so much confusion in there that he can't remember the last question, and that may be why he never answers it.
ywy2
Was I confused when I read that a prominent CWIF member was supporting the Causeymire windfarm?
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=228195&highlight=causeymire#post228195
And lordy oh lordy! I must have been in a real tizz of confusion when I read that a prominent CWIF member was interested in developing his own wind farm.....so long as it wasn't on his own backyard eh?:roll:
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=240254&postcount=27
I am not saying ywindy is the CWIF member in question, he certainly isn't but it just goes to show that I don't hold the monopoly on 'confusion'.
Badger, where was your sense of civility when olivia was making that false and unsubstantiated claim about me?:confused
My apologies Reggy - I never felt you were in need of defending but will gladly do it even though I didn't make this statement. To the best of my knowledge you are not connected with the local windfarm industry and I'm assuming, since you say the claim is false and unsubstantiated, that the claim is not correct as I have no reason to doubt your veracity.
Now, it's your turn .......
Green_not_greed
16-Dec-07, 16:06
did you stamp your foot as you typed that post?:confused
Most certainly not, but I know a tantrum when I see one! I'm beginning to feel a bit like Paxman now. Once again, could you please substantiate your claim about CWIF and NPower, or apologise?
Unsubstantiated claims? I have neither the patience or the time to list the endless and erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by you
Another unsubstantiated claim! Don't you ever learn? Please provide examples of where I have made any such claims on this forum.
GNG
Once again, could you please substantiate your claim about CWIF and NPower, or apologise?
If you mean that I should substantiate claims that a CWIF spokesman has been/is hypocritically involved in developing wind farms in an other area of the Highland region then i think I just did so.
Green_not_greed
16-Dec-07, 17:18
Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables?
Now as we all know, that's the quote which you are being asked to substantiate or apologise for. Or simply retract if you're not big enough to apologise.
ywindythesecond
16-Dec-07, 17:44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=311020#post311020)
Badger, what makes you think Reggy would listen to me?
He might not even be able to hear me over the myriad small voices rattling around inside his head and battling to be the first out his mouth.
There is possibly so much confusion in there that he can't remember the last question, and that may be why he never answers it.
ywy2
Was I confused when I read that a prominent CWIF member was supporting the Causeymire windfarm?
http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...e#post2 28195 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=228195&highlight=causeymire#post228195)
And lordy oh lordy! I must have been in a real tizz of confusion when I read that a prominent CWIF member was interested in developing his own wind farm.....so long as it wasn't on his own backyard eh?:roll:
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....4&postcount=27 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=240254&postcount=27)
I am not saying ywindy is the CWIF member in question, he certainly isn't but it just goes to show that I don't hold the monopoly on 'confusion'.
__________________
Reggy,
My post on Causeymire windfarm was my personal view and it made that clear. You posted "Yet the Causeymire wind farm is supported by CWIF." It is not possible to derive your conclusion from my personal opinion. Say sorry.
Regarding my search for venture capital to develop a windfarm on the former Longman Tip in Inverness, I wondered what you were up to when you PM-ed me about it two weeks ago. Little did I suspect you were plotting the downfall of CWIF on the strength of it! I would not have replied "Thanks. I remember now. No interest in it I'm afraid so I have dropped my plans."
You must be very pleased to get the chance to drop this bombshell so soon after your keen inquiring mind discovered this skeleton in the cupboard!
Green_not_greed
16-Dec-07, 17:52
Oh, please do!:roll:
Sorry - almost forgot about this one!
Lots of examples can be found under the accident data at www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) - you need to list the full accident list. Take your pick.....
Accident 303 at the Nissan car factory in Sunderland is a classic example. In December 2005, a 55m high turbine caught fire. There were fears that the turbine would fall onto one of the nearby roads however luckily it fell into a nearby field. Locals were reported to be "terrified" (27/12/05 report). All three blades burned and fell off.
Operators Nissan were quoted as saying "as far as we're aware nothing like this has happened before".
According to the accidents listed, fire is the second most common accident type after blade failure.
Now as we all know, that's the quote which you are being asked to substantiate or apologise for. Or simply retract if you're not big enough to apologise.
Would you really want me to be responsible for someone to lose their job when I perfectly support their efforts to bring renewable energy to this area?:roll: So that is the end of the matter. There is certainly bigger fish to fry than that.
Now it gives me no pleasure at all to reveal that there are serious pro-wind forces at work at the very heart of policy-making at CWIF, it doesn't take too much imagination on how advantageous that could be for a wind farm developer. But I think that the wider CWIF membership should be aware of what they are getting for their money.
ywindythesecond
16-Dec-07, 21:21
Would you really want me to be responsible for someone to lose their job when I perfectly support their efforts to bring renewable energy to this area?:roll: So that is the end of the matter. There is certainly bigger fish to fry than that.
Now it gives me no pleasure at all to reveal that there are serious pro-wind forces at work at the very heart of policy-making at CWIF, it doesn't take too much imagination on how advantageous that could be for a wind farm developer. But I think that the wider CWIF membership should be aware of what they are getting for their money.
Well just tell them Reggy! The whole truth! Everything! Don't mess about. Facts figures scandal and deception. Just spit it out, goodness knows you have tried to be discreet and responsible and it hasn't worked. Its not your fault, it is time to reveal all!
Can't wait.
ywy2
Green_not_greed
16-Dec-07, 21:23
Would you really want me to be responsible for someone to lose their job when I perfectly support their efforts to bring renewable energy to this area?:roll: So that is the end of the matter. There is certainly bigger fish to fry than that.
Now it gives me no pleasure at all to reveal that there are serious pro-wind forces at work at the very heart of policy-making at CWIF, it doesn't take too much imagination on how advantageous that could be for a wind farm developer. But I think that the wider CWIF membership should be aware of what they are getting for their money.
Oh dear, how sad. Still not answering the question, huh?
If as you suggest there are some pro-wind forces at work within an open public body like CWIF then the public and certainly the membership have a right to know.
And which job would the individual lose? The unpaid job with CWIF, or the non-existant job with NPower?
As has been already suggested, please contact ywindy directly and name the individual you are convinced is married into - or indeed connected to - NPower. Without naming the individual publically ywindy can then announce - on this forum - whether the name and association are genuine. If you can't or won't contact ywindy direct regarding this then I would strongly suggest that everyone on the .org should become aware of the entire scam merchant you are.
And FYI, there is no annual membership fee for CWIF. They are funded entirely on donations.
Regarding my search for venture capital to develop a windfarm on the former Longman Tip in Inverness, I wondered what you were up to when you PM-ed me about it two weeks ago. Little did I suspect you were plotting the downfall of CWIF on the strength of it! I would not have replied "Thanks. I remember now. No interest in it I'm afraid so I have dropped my plans."
You must be very pleased to get the chance to drop this bombshell so soon after your keen inquiring mind discovered this skeleton in the cupboard!
I had no plans at all to plot the downfall of CWIF, in fact I broadly support CWIF(even though I am not a member) as a centre of information, I think there is a very valid reason for the work you are doing. Even I think there should be a limit to the amount of windfarms we should have up here.
Anyway, I seem to remember that you at first denied all knowledge of your Longman Tip venture, I felt that was very unlikely. You quoted a specific number of turbines and wattage, it is obviously you had made a detailed survey of the site and knew what type of turbine you would need, and put a business plan together. You would need a business plan if you were wanting investors. You weren't forthcoming with an answer via our pms because you knew you had been found out and that you hadn't anticipated that your login anonymity would be compromised in the Baillie windfarm montage thread.
Green_not_greed
16-Dec-07, 21:40
....Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables?
....there are serious pro-wind forces at work at the very heart of policy-making at CWIF...
If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up. rheghead
Agreed - over to you, then.........
ywindythesecond
17-Dec-07, 00:00
I had no plans at all to plot the downfall of CWIF, in fact I broadly support CWIF(even though I am not a member) as a centre of information, I think there is a very valid reason for the work you are doing. Even I think there should be a limit to the amount of windfarms we should have up here.
Anyway, I seem to remember that you at first denied all knowledge of your Longman Tip venture, I felt that was very unlikely. You quoted a specific number of turbines and wattage, it is obviously you had made a detailed survey of the site and knew what type of turbine you would need, and put a business plan together. You would need a business plan if you were wanting investors. You weren't forthcoming with an answer via our pms because you knew you had been found out and that you hadn't anticipated that your login anonymity would be compromised in the Baillie windfarm montage thread.
This is the full PM exchange.
REGGY
Just wondered, did you get any progress with making a wind farm proposal with the Longman site and do you still want fellow investors?
ME
I vaguely remember mentioning Longman site, but forget the detail. Can you remind me please.
REGGY
I take it you didn't progress your proposal then. You didn't give much detail except to say you were thinking of developing the brownfield longman tip site in Inverness.
ME
It would be helpful if you gave me the script of your source material.
REGGY
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....4&postcount=27 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=240254&postcount=27)
Remember now?
ME
[Thanks. I remember now. No interest in it I'm afraid so I have dropped my plans.
And anyone who wants to read my remark in context see here
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=28806 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=28806)
Regarding Baillie windfarm and my loss of anonymity, I chose to do that because I have no reason to hide behind a log-in name. And Reggy, you still have unfinished business to deal with over that affair.
Ywy2
Agreed - over to you, then.........
I was asking a question which requires an answer, I wasn't making a statement which requires substantiation. Over to you, then......
[Thanks. I remember now. No interest in it I'm afraid so I have dropped my plans.
And what about your 'other' plans which purports to advance the tourism industry of Caithness by providing a wind farm interpretive centre on the summit of Couper hill which is linked to windfarm developments in the area?:roll:
I seem to remember that you said there is no future in 'Windfarm tourism'?[lol]
http://195.173.143.171/minutes/areas/caithness/planning/reports/2005/050613/c_p_122_05.pdf
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 09:36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=311394#post311394)
....Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=311394#post311394)
....there are serious pro-wind forces at work at the very heart of policy-making at CWIF...
Two unfounded allegations which there is a need to substantiate or withdraw. I'm sure that CWIF knows that its all a complete scam by yourself. Or is it simply a bid to attract attention? 5000+ posts on any forum says a lot.
If you post allegations like the above you should be prepared to either substantiate them or withdraw. Or apologise. If you're big enough.....
Is it because the wife of one of CWIF's main guys is married to someone who is high up in npowerenewables?
Are you going to keep avoiding to answer the question? It requires a fairly simple yes/no answer.
Your all holier than thou attitude is damaging the reputation of CWIF which frankly deserves better
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 13:08
Are you going to keep avoiding to answer the question? It requires a fairly simple yes/no answer.
Your all holier than thou attitude is damaging the reputation of CWIF which frankly deserves better
I see, now you're dancing in circles.......
You made an accusation. In fact more than one. However the main accusation has been rebutted on this forum a number of times and by various individuals one of which you know to be directly connected to CWIF. You have been asked to either substantiate your claims - which we all know are without substance - or withdraw them. So far you have failed miserably to do either.
There is no question for me to answer. Its you who needs to come clean here and either substantiate your claims or withdraw them.
A holy attitude is well suited to the time of year, don't you think.
Then I stand by my question.
Sorry - almost forgot about this one!
Lots of examples can be found under the accident data at www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) - you need to list the full accident list. Take your pick.....
Accident 303 at the Nissan car factory in Sunderland is a classic example. In December 2005, a 55m high turbine caught fire. There were fears that the turbine would fall onto one of the nearby roads however luckily it fell into a nearby field. Locals were reported to be "terrified" (27/12/05 report). All three blades burned and fell off.
Operators Nissan were quoted as saying "as far as we're aware nothing like this has happened before".
According to the accidents listed, fire is the second most common accident type after blade failure.
You have failed to established that the same type of mechanical failure has resulted in fire on another site. Therefore up to now Nissan's comment still holds true.
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 13:43
Then I stand by my question.
Can you be more specific?
I am disappointed in you Rheghead - I expected better. You asked me to come to your defence over an allegation that you were connected to the windfarm industry - I accepted your denial and did so. Why will you not now withdraw your accusation that a member of CWIF is married to someone high up in npower? You should either withdraw or substantiate your claim to ywindy, whom you know to be a prominent CWIF member.
It was a simple question, not an accusation, if the answer is no then it is no, but I will make more enquiries once I speak to my source. At the moment I can't either way, but I am asking a simple question and it just takes a simple answer from a rep from CWIF and that will be the end of the matter.
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 14:37
42.
Now, what was the question.......
ywindythesecond
17-Dec-07, 14:40
And what about your 'other' plans which purports to advance the tourism industry of Caithness by providing a wind farm interpretive centre on the summit of Couper hill which is linked to windfarm developments in the area?:roll:
I seem to remember that you said there is no future in 'Windfarm tourism'?[lol]
http://195.173.143.171/minutes/areas/caithness/planning/reports/2005/050613/c_p_122_05.pdf
A missed opportunity Im afraid, though perhaps its day has come. Any spare cash?
I am disappointed in you Rheghead - I expected better. You asked me to come to your defence over an allegation that you were connected to the windfarm industry - I accepted your denial and did so. Why will you not now withdraw your accusation that a member of CWIF is married to someone high up in npower? You should either withdraw or substantiate your claim to ywindy, whom you know to be a prominent CWIF member.
Yes, I will withdraw the question because the prominent CWIF member is actually married to someone who is employed with a different, albeit local windfarm developer, it wasn't npower afterall.
I did actually get it wrong this time. Sorry.
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 16:09
Well done, Rheghead.
See ..... you can do it if you try!
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 16:11
Yes, I will withdraw the question because the prominent CWIF member is married to someone who is employed with a different, albeit local windfarm developer, it wasn't npower afterall.
I did actually get it wrong this time. Sorry.
Anyone with half an interest in local windfarms knows that CWIF wasn't formed until after Causeymire had been approved....
So who is this other alleged developer? The same as your source?
Anyone with half an interest in local windfarms knows that CWIF wasn't formed until after Causeymire had been approved....
So who is this other alleged developer? The same as your source?
I wouldn't like to be more specific because any suitably positioned windfarm development is welcome. But if CWIF members are involved with windfarm developers then I would describe that as a conflict of interest. There is a lot of speculation going about already with regarding objections not landing up on the right desk in the time allotted at Inverness or the Scottish executive.
And all because a lorry got stuck going round Rosebank Playing Fields.....
And all because a lorry got stuck going round Rosebank Playing Fields.....
Yes indeed, I noticed the unsubstantiated claim in the opening post. ;):lol:
There is a lot of speculation going about already with regarding objections not landing up on the right desk in the time allotted at Inverness or the Scottish executive.
Do please explain what you mean by this Rheghead.
...not landing up on the right desk in the time allotted...
Must be using the same delivery methods as the HMRC et al....
Green_not_greed
17-Dec-07, 21:36
And all because a lorry got stuck going round Rosebank Playing Fields.....
It could have been worse!!!!!
http://members.aol.com/hieronymusbosch2/Niederkirchen_bericht.jpg
An average, wind turbines produce typically 25-30% of their nominal output, depending on the wind of course. So why isn't this taken into account in the developers claims before they are built? After all, the facts are well known. Once again, its simple - all they have to do is TELL THE TRUTH!.
I have misunderstood what the definition of a 'home' is, I thought it included industry and services as a proportion of what the average home requires, it doesn't, it just includes domestic useage, however the wind data does take into account of the load factor of 30%, so I can't see what the lie is. The wind industry quotes an annual average energy requirement for each home which is ~4700kWh.
Take the example of Causeymire.
48MW X 0.3 X24 X365 = 1.26E11Wh
Number of homes supplied = 1.26E11Wh/4700E3Wh= 27,000.2sf
Just like what they said in the first place.
Green_not_greed
22-Dec-07, 10:03
Take the example of Causeymire.
48MW X 0.3 X24 X365 = 1.26E11Wh
Number of homes supplied = 1.26E11Wh/4700E3Wh= 27,000.2sf
OK, let me get this right.....
The Causewaymire wind factory supplies enough electricity for 27000 homes. When the wind is blowing.
According to the 2001 census, Caithness has 10,870 homes.
So the Causewaymire factory supplies more than twice the electricity required in the county.
SO WHY DOES CAITHNESS NEED ANY MORE WIND TURBINES?
OK, let me get this right.....
The Causewaymire wind factory supplies enough electricity for 27000 homes. When the wind is blowing.
According to the 2001 census, Caithness has 10,870 homes.
So the Causewaymire factory supplies more than twice the electricity required in the county.
SO WHY DOES CAITHNESS NEED ANY MORE WIND TURBINES?
Because carbon doixide has no respect for county boundaries. ;)
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-07, 10:09
I have misunderstood what the definition of a 'home' is, I thought it included industry and services as a proportion of what the average home requires, it doesn't, it just includes domestic useage, however the wind data does take into account the load factor of 30%, so I can't see what the lie is. The wind industry quotes an annual average energy requirement for each home which is ~4700kWh.
Take the example of Causeymire.
48MW X 0.3 X24 X365 = 1.26E11Wh
Number of homes supplied = 1.26E11Wh/4700E3Wh= 27,000.2sf
Just like what they said in the first place.
This is what the Baillie website says:
With a capacity of this size in such a windy part of Scotland, the project will meet the average needs of some 35,000 households.
This is what the Spittal Hill website says:
The electricity needs of some 42,000 average households would be provided by the Windfarm.
Not quite the same are they? The Spittal statement is quite clear. 42,000 households won't need any other source of electricity. True or false?
Right now, 9am on 22nd December, it is freezing outside, no wind, and on average I have my breakfast now.
ywy2
This is what the Baillie website says:
With a capacity of this size in such a windy part of Scotland, the project will meet the average needs of some 35,000 households.
This is what the Spittal Hill website says:
The electricity needs of some 42,000 average households would be provided by the Windfarm.
Not quite the same are they?
ywy2
Spittal is 75MW and Baillie is ~53MW? So yes the maths works out to be 42,000 and 35,000 homes. What isn't the quite same?
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-07, 10:31
The difference may be due to using local data for the load factor rather than a national average, I believe Causeymire is achieving 40% , so other windfarms may be using a figure nearer to what is expected in Caithness.
The only misleading being done may be actually underestimating the performance of the windfarm or under selling themselves.
Another bodyswerve Reggy.
This is what the Spittal Hill website says:
The electricity needs of some 42,000 average households would be provided by the Windfarm.
True statement or false statement? Please don't make a play on words, please just address the question.
ywy2
Another bodyswerve Reggy.
This is what the Spittal Hill website says:
The electricity needs of some 42,000 average households would be provided by the Windfarm.
True statement or false statement? Please don't make a play on words, please just address the question.
ywy2
True statement. I am not the one doing the body swerves, just do the maths.
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-07, 10:40
True statement. I am not the one doing the body swerves, just do the maths.
My house uses electricity 24 hours a day. If my supply came from Spittal Hill windfarm, it could not supply me electricity 24 hours a day.
True or false?
My house uses electricity 24 hours a day. If my supply came from Spittal Hill windfarm, it could not supply me electricity 24 hours a day.
True or false?
You are being specious or trying a strawman, anyway, the answer is the same as to this....
My house uses electricity 24 hours a day. If my supply came from Hunterston B, it could not supply me electricity 24 hours a day.
True or false?
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-07, 11:02
Reggy
If you spent as much energy amswering questions as you do avoiding answering questions, you could probably make a useful contribution. As it is...
I'm out, got better things to do. Going to talk to a log.
ywy2
I don't think so. If those websites stated they would meet some of the needs they might be nearer the truth. The implication is they would meet all the needs and, as ywindy states, the past few days have been very cold with almost no wind. I wouldn't want to be relying on windpower just now.
Also these two together claim to supply 77,000 households. How far is the power going to have to travel to find all those households ? Some way I guess.
The clue was in the wink...:)
Seriously though, isn't the excess electricity generated by wind farms stored in batteries for when the wind isn't blowing?
Reggy
If you spent as much energy amswering questions as you do avoiding answering questions, you could probably make a useful contribution. As it is...
I'm out, got better things to do. Going to talk to a log.
ywy2
Try asking a question that can be answered fairly. The answer to the question is the same for all generators whether they be coal gas or nuke.
The clue was in the wink...:)
Seriously though, isn't the excess electricity generated by wind farms stored in batteries for when the wind isn't blowing?
There isn't any excess electricity as demand outstrips supply. The likes of CWIF and John Muir Trust et al make sure of that.
Rheggie wins again.
I don't get any pleasure by proving the anti-windies wrong and there certainly isn't any game going on here. What is real and tangible is the struggle towards a low carbon economy. If you think you can do your bit by just doing a bit of recycling and sharing a car to work then think again. What this world needs is real positive steps and a change of attitude from the NIMBY train of thought which would result in nothing being done at all.
I don't think so. If those websites stated they would meet some of the needs they might be nearer the truth.
Please give me any examples that backs up your claim that the windfarms do not do as they say.
Incidentally, if there was an unplanned outage of power from one of the turbines then there are 20 more still operating and there is a little problem. You cannot say that for Hunterston B or Torness, if one of those suddenly goes down then they require massive amounts of back up, as was seen just recently.
Green_not_greed
22-Dec-07, 16:40
Seriously though, isn't the excess electricity generated by wind farms stored in batteries for when the wind isn't blowing?
No - there is no storage and thats one of the big problems with wind. Other power stations can be powered down when there is a lack of demand. Wind has to be used when the wind is available. If it wasn't for a diverse supply of reliable generators to the National Grid, we'd all be at the mercy of the weather.
In California, wind power electricity is converted into hydrogen which is then stored for use. Works great but is extremely inefficient. And hydrogen is very flammable and difficult to contain.
Sorry Geo - missed the wink as was in a rush to go out. Must look more carefully at smilies :eek:
Rheggy - I would have thought the answer was obvious. If there is no wind in very cold weather how are windfarms going to meet the needs of all those households? To repeat, if they claimed some of the needs ....... , but they don't.
This is getting very boring - am going out again soon and have things to do.
Green_not_greed
22-Dec-07, 18:10
The answer to the question is the same for all generators whether they be coal gas or nuke.
Well, that's not quite true, is it. Its true that all power stations have to be shut down at some point for maintenance, refuelling, etc. So no one point source of power could be said to be available, 24 hrs/day, 365.25 days/year.
However, the subtle but definitive difference between wind and other energy sources is that other energy sources have scheduled maintenance (or outage) periods which can be planned around as far as continuity of supply is concerned. Wind can not, and can never be, relied upon to provide power at any given time of day, week, month or year.
NickInTheNorth
22-Dec-07, 18:12
Well, that's not quite true, is it. Its true that all power stations have to be shut down at some point for maintenance, refuelling, etc. So no one point source of power could be said to be available, 24 hrs/day, 365.25 days/year.
However, the subtle but definitive difference between wind and other energy sources is that other energy sources have scheduled maintenance (or outage) periods which can be planned around as far as continuity of supply is concerned. Wind can not, and can never be, relied upon to provide power at any given time of day, week, month or year.
Can you not think of any situation in which the reliable supply of gas or oil could be interupted:confused
Without working too hard I found this pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn230.pdf) which suggests that by 2006! we would once more be a net importer of gas. Don't know how the figures have panned out, but if our gas suppliers ever decide to stop supplying we could wait for far longer than the next windy day for them to turn the supply back on again.
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-07, 19:28
Please give me any examples that backs up your claim that the windfarms do not do as they say.
Incidentally, if there was an unplanned outage of power from one of the turbines then there are 20 more still operating and there is a little problem. You cannot say that for Hunterston B or Torness, if one of those suddenly goes down then they require massive amounts of back up, as was seen just recently.
Can't help myself!
Reggy, apart from mechanical or electrical problems, EVERY time there is an unplanned outage on a windfarm, they ALL shut down, or slow down and give less power. Windfarm production and windfarm outage is all unplanned! It might be anticipated, but it is unplanned.
Nuclear, gas, oil, coal, hydro, MIW, etc are PLANNED. They might break down, but there is a plan for that too.
Wind is random and uncontrollable. How do you plan for that? And that is the problem technically.
ywy2
Wind is random and uncontrollable. How do you plan for that? And that is the problem technically.
ywy2
There is no problem technically for the moment, I've shown you umpteen times before that the National Grid can accomodate 20% from intermittent energy sources but the information just fails to register.
I think the answer will probably be more, more and more geographically diverse windfarms.
Rheggy - I would have thought the answer was obvious. If there is no wind in very cold weather how are windfarms going to meet the needs of all those households? To repeat, if they claimed some of the needs ....... , but they don't.
The 42000 figure includes the 30% inefficiency.
ywindythesecond
23-Dec-07, 21:31
The 42000 figure includes the 30% inefficiency.
I think you mean the 70% inefficiency.
ywy2
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.